On 08/11/2011 01:40 PM, Lux, Jim (337C) wrote:
> It's really depends on a corporate/organizational commitment to open
> source to institute processes to keep all this stuff straight. (and
> we won't even get into "open source" vs "able to redistribute")
There are profoundly incorrect views running around out there, as to
what "open source" means. I had someone tell me that GPLv2 prevented
distribution of binaries (it doesn't). I've watched people slap
additional legal bits in conflict with GPL onto GPL source.
I don't want to say "its a mess" but I do want to say that "there is a
profound need for a very simple statement of what is and isn't allowed
by each license." Including what is involved in altering licensing.
While these are more or less amusing and some won't really result in
court cases and precedents, there is at least one effort that has some
nice potential to test GPL. See the zfs on linux systems. c.f.
http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue
I can't imagine this will end well for any company shipping this, in
source, build script, or binary form. CDDL aside, Oracle's got some IP
claims they could file, as well as other things. I can't believe that
shipping NetBSD binaries with Oracle IP inside would end well either.
--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics Inc.
email: landman at scalableinformatics.com
web : http://scalableinformatics.comhttp://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster
phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
fax : +1 866 888 3112
cell : +1 734 612 4615